EPAL NTEGRATED OVERNANCE ROJECT N I G P (IGP) END -LINE SURVEY 2019 NEPAL INTEGRATED GOVERNANCE PROJECT (IGP) END-LINE SURVEY 2019 October 2020 Evaluation/Survey Mechanism Number: AID-367-C-15-00001 Disclaimer The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Nepal Integrated Governance Project (IGP) End-line Survey 2019 ii Acronyms and Abbreviations v Survey Team Members vi Executive Summary vii Survey Purpose vii Project Background vii Findings viii Conclusions ix Introduction and Background 1 Survey Purpose 1 Survey Methodology 2 Sampling Frame 2 Survey Instrument 4 Limitations 5 Findings 7 Section 1: Inclusion and Tolerance 7 Section 2: Peaceful Conflict Resolution 9 Remaining Issues of the Peace Process 12 Section 3: Participation and Governance 15 B. Sixteen IGP Indicators 15 C. Media 21 D. Election 21 E. Corruption 23 F. Citizens Interactions With Elected Representatives and the Bureaucracy 25 G. Human Trafficking 27 G1. The Proportion of People Who Are Aware of Human Trafficking 27 H. Effective Government 28 I. Assessment of Governments After The New Constitution 29 Appendix 1: Survey Statement of Work 38 Appendix 2: List of Indicators That Changed Significantly Between 2015 and 2019 43 Appendix 3: Contributing Questions for 16 IGP Indicators 57 Appendix 4: Desegregation of 16 PMP IGP Indicators 59 Appendix 5: Study Districts and Cluster and Sample Size 75 Appendix 6: Tables of All Questions Comparing the 2015 Baseline, 2017 Midline, and 2019 End-line 80 Appendix 7: Survey Questionnaire 116 iii Appendix 8: Support letter from Ministry of Federal Affairs for Data Collection 162 Appendix 9: Study and Data Collection Team 163 Appendix 10: Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest 164 iv Acronyms and Abbreviations ADS Automated Directives Systems AOR Agreement Officer’s Representative APR Annual Performance Review AT+ AID Tracker Plus CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy CIO Chief Information Officer (USAID Bureau for Management) COP Chief of Party COR Contracting Officer’s Representative CLA Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting CPA Comprehensive Peace Accord DDL Development Data Library DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse DGO Democracy and Governance Office (USAID/ Nepal) DMD Deputy Mission Director DO Development Objective DRRO Disaster Risk Reduction Office (USAID/ Nepal) DRG Democracy, Human Right and Governance FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GIS Geographic Information System (or Services) HEO Health and Education Office (USAID/ Nepal) IMET Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation Team (USAID/ Nepal) IP Implementing Partner IT Information Technology KPI Key Performance Indicator M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (USAID/ Nepal Project) OAA Office of Acquisition and Assistance (USAID/ Nepal) PAD Project Appraisal Document PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheet PMP Performance Management Plan POC Point of Contact PPD Program and Project Development (USAID/ Nepal Office) PPR Annual Performance Plan and Report RFP Request for Proposal SEED Social, Environmental, and Economic Development Office (USAID/ Nepal) SLT Senior Leadership Team SOW Scope of Work STTA Short Term Technical Assistance TOC Theory of Change USAID United States Agency for International Development/ Mission VDC Village Development Committee v Survey Team Members Sudhindra Sharma, PhD, Independent Consultant Kshitiz Shrestha, Evaluation Specialist, CAMRIS International Ganesh Sharma, Statistician/Data Analyst Specialist, CAMRIS International Ram Khoju Shrestha, Data Management Specialist Manorama Adhikari, Deputy Chief of Party, CAMRIS International New Era: Survey Partner vi Executive Summary This report presents the findings from the 2019 End-line Survey of the Integrated Governance Project (IGP), comparing these findings from the baseline (2015/16) and midline (2017) surveys of IGP. Where applicable, this report also highlights the major differences between the USAID and national samples. Furthermore, this report analyzes data and findings beyond those covered in the USAID/Nepal Performance Management Plan (PMP) indicators by developing relevant themes and by mapping the survey questions to those pertinent themes. SURVEY PURPOSE The IGP surveys provide information on the extent to which the Mission’s programs have been successful in increasing the inclusion of the Nepalese population in civic and political life and improving the government’s ability to respond to people’s needs and demands. In addition to the involvement and satisfaction of the overall population with the government programs, the surveys also examine the involvement and satisfaction of traditionally marginalized and excluded groups, including women, youth, Dalit, Janajati, and Madhesi, among others. The surveys intend to provide a richer and more detailed understanding of Nepalese people’s attitudes, values, and aspirations, and how these are translated into their relationships with their government. Furthermore, the surveys supplement monitoring and evaluation activities supported by USAID and others by providing bottom-up information about the success of Mission programs. Through all this information, the surveys’ major objective is to provide evidence-based findings to the Mission and it’s implementing partners to improve the design and implementation of ongoing and new programs and to inform the new USAID/Nepal Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS). PROJECT BACKGROUND The IGP surveys play an important role in providing information for USAID’s comprehensive 2014 PMP, reflecting the CDCS. The PMP is a single, Mission-wide source of information which assists USAID in managing results to achieve its development goals. The CDCS has guided approximately $400 million in investments from fiscal years 2014 to 2019. The overall goal for the Mission, as stated in the CDCS, is “a more democratic, prosperous, and resilient Nepal.” Three development objectives (DO) contribute to the achievement of this goal and reflect the key development hypotheses that informed USAID/Nepal’s projects and activities over the five-year CDCS period: DO1: More Inclusive and Effective Governance. DO2: Inclusive and Sustainable Economic Growth to Reduce Extreme Poverty. DO3: Increased Human Capital. Within the PMP, DO1 established indicators for each intermediate result (IR) and each of the four sub- immediate results, including peace, accountability, civil participation, and performance. The IGP surveys supply several datasets for monitoring and evaluation efforts under the PMP. Finally, the surveys provide valuable information to the Mission’s implementing partners from across the USAID development sectors. vii FINDINGS This report focuses on key IGP performance indicators from the USAID/Nepal Mission Performance PMP, comparing responses to questions in the 2015/16 baseline survey and 2017 survey to responses in the 2019 end-line survey to determine the level of change in three areas: (1) inclusion and tolerance, (2) peaceful conflict resolution, and (3) participation and governance. Regarding inclusion and tolerance, the share of people who agree with the concept that males and females should have equal access to social, economic, and political opportunities has declined by 9.2 percent between the baseline and end-line. Similarly, the percent of those who express tolerance towards other groups (Dalits, women, indigenous peoples, youths, Muslim, Brahmin/Chettri, etc.) also has declined by 7.1 percent points in the four years between 2015 and 2019. Not all facets of inclusion have declined, however. The percent of those who agree with the concept that all segments of the population should have equal access to social, economic, and political opportunities has more or less remained the same (99 percent) during these four years. Regarding peaceful conflict resolution, the share of people expressing awareness of any community efforts to resolve conflicts has declined by 6.3 percent between 2015 and 2019. Regarding the indicator on willingness to resort to violent protests if the peace and reconciliation process does not meet their expectations, there is a significant increase - 24.3 percent between the baseline and the end-line. The share of people mentioning unresolved local conflicts in their community between the baseline and the end-line has declined by 11.9 percent. Likewise, the share of people who think that the peace process is progressing in the right direction increased by 29.6 percent in 2019 compared to 2015. The share of people who think the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is performing well has decreased by 1.2 percent points in the total sample between the baseline (50.5 percent) and end-line (49.3 percent). And the proportion of people who think the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons is performing well has decreased by 5.2 percent points in the total sample between the mid-line (44.4 percent) and end-line (39.2 percent) (Note: this question was not asked during the baseline). The proportion of people who think true and unbiased information has to be provided to conflict victims has declined by 3.8 percent from the baseline (99.5 percent) to the end-line (95.7 percent). Ninety-five percent of the people in the end-line, compared to 79.4 percent in the baseline, think it is important to provide required services to conflict victims. Though slightly less than the baseline